Glossary
WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, is the W3C's technical standard for making web content usable by people with disabilities. It defines testable success criteria at three levels (A, AA, AAA) across versions 2.0 (2008), 2.1 (2018), and 2.2 (2023). WCAG is not itself a law, but it is the benchmark US courts, DOJ settlements, and regulations reference when deciding what an 'accessible' website means, with 2.1 Level AA as the de-facto legal standard.
Versions and levels, practically
Each WCAG version adds criteria without removing old ones: 2.1 added mobile, low-vision, and cognitive criteria on top of 2.0; 2.2 added nine more (focus appearance, dragging alternatives, accessible authentication among them). Level A is the floor, AA is the standard regulators and settlements specify, AAA is aspirational for most sites. When a demand letter or consent decree says 'make the site accessible,' the operative spec is almost always WCAG 2.1 AA, and DOJ's 2024 rule for state and local governments codified exactly that benchmark under Title II, the clearest federal signal yet of where the bar sits.
What automated testing can and cannot verify
A large share of WCAG failures are mechanically testable: missing alt text, contrast ratios, form labels, ARIA misuse, heading structure, keyboard traps. That's what axe-core (the engine inside Complidar, Lighthouse, and most professional tooling) measures, and it's the same class of failure plaintiffs' scanners find, which makes it the right first filter. What automation cannot judge: whether alt text is *meaningful*, whether reading order makes sense, whether captions are accurate, whether a flow is genuinely operable with a screen reader. Full conformance requires human evaluation; any tool claiming a perfect automated score equals compliance is overclaiming.
How Complidar checks this
Complidar runs axe-core in a real browser across up to 120 pages, maps findings to their WCAG criteria, attaches the settlement-cited legal context (which barriers actual suits cite), and says plainly which findings are automation-verifiable and where human review takes over.
Related questions
Is WCAG legally mandatory for private businesses?
The ADA never names WCAG, but courts and DOJ settlements use it as the measuring stick. Practically, defending an inaccessible site means being measured against WCAG 2.1 AA. For state and local government sites, DOJ's 2024 Title II rule made 2.1 AA an explicit regulatory requirement.
Should I target WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA?
2.1 AA is the litigation and regulatory benchmark today; 2.2 AA is the current W3C version and a sensible engineering target since it contains 2.1. Practical answer: remediate to 2.1 AA first (that's what letters cite), adopt 2.2's additions as you go.
My automated scan shows zero errors. Am I compliant?
You're in better shape than most defendants, but automated checks cover only the mechanically testable criteria. Zero automated errors means the scanner-visible barriers plaintiffs cite are gone; full conformance still needs human review of judgment criteria. Complidar reports state this boundary explicitly rather than rounding it away.
22 checks · up to 120 pages · no card
Last updated 2026-06-11 · Informational, not legal advice